3 ms·

> Again, if you can TL;DR it meaningfully people could be interested, otherwise it looks like plain old gatekeeping. I did, you keep missing the point. True g

by znpy 2y ago

> Again, if you can TL;DR it meaningfully people could be interested, otherwise it looks like plain old gatekeeping. I did, you keep missing the point. True gatekeeping is preventing people from exploring ideas by saying people should not fork. Quite literally, you’re the one pushing for the gate to be kept closed. I can’t help you with text comprehension, I’m sorry. Since you keep missing the point I won’t be replying any further, it’s wasted time. Good luck with everything.

pdimitar 2y ago
You explained exactly nothing. You only said "do your homework" as if I am supposed to extract your exact meaning from a likely series of blog posts and videos. I get that you want to emerge the "winner" here but it's not going to work, HN readers are fairly well-educated. I asked for a summary, you refused it by also reaching for an ad hominem. It's very visible who is who in this situation. Good luck indeed.
- maxbond 2y ago
  > It's very visible who is who in this situation. To be frank, I think most of us just see two people failing to communicate.
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    Ultimately, yes. When it's visible there's hostility and bad faith, I think we're excused for not putting the usual amount of effort.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxbond 2y ago
      To be frank again, there wasn't really bad faith and hostility in the way you mean. You were snarky to them, and they escalated by insulting you. That doesn't really excuse anyone from anything; you both made your choices, and neither of you chose to descalate or to walk away. (To be clear, I have already read what happened, and I cannot be convinced otherwise. Any more than I can be convinced the sky is green. I'm just letting you know, because you invited the audience to pass judgment. If you feel compelled to justify yourself, just know that it's falling on deaf ears.)
      - pdimitar 2y ago
        I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have indeed invited any future reader to draw their own conclusions and they're 100% free to do so. It was not implying that I'm sure my point of view is the only valid one -- more like that people of certain character type would align with me, and others with the other poster. That was all there was to it and it was my way to disengage. Can you point out what did you perceive as snark, btw?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

by znpy 2y ago

pdimitar 2y ago

You explained exactly nothing. You only said "do your homework" as if I am supposed to extract your exact meaning from a likely series of blog posts and videos. I get that you want to emerge the "winner" here but it's not going to work, HN readers are fairly well-educated. I asked for a summary, you refused it by also reaching for an ad hominem. It's very visible who is who in this situation. Good luck indeed.

maxbond 2y ago
> It's very visible who is who in this situation. To be frank, I think most of us just see two people failing to communicate.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  Ultimately, yes. When it's visible there's hostility and bad faith, I think we're excused for not putting the usual amount of effort.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxbond 2y ago
    To be frank again, there wasn't really bad faith and hostility in the way you mean. You were snarky to them, and they escalated by insulting you. That doesn't really excuse anyone from anything; you both made your choices, and neither of you chose to descalate or to walk away. (To be clear, I have already read what happened, and I cannot be convinced otherwise. Any more than I can be convinced the sky is green. I'm just letting you know, because you invited the audience to pass judgment. If you feel compelled to justify yourself, just know that it's falling on deaf ears.)
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have indeed invited any future reader to draw their own conclusions and they're 100% free to do so. It was not implying that I'm sure my point of view is the only valid one -- more like that people of certain character type would align with me, and others with the other poster. That was all there was to it and it was my way to disengage. Can you point out what did you perceive as snark, btw?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]